find_expert_advice

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Although no annotations are provided, the description discloses that the tool returns editorial articles written by local experts and instructs to cite the article URL. It implicitly indicates a read-only operation with no side effects. This is adequate for a simple query tool, though it could mention rate limits or authentication needs if applicable.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single paragraph that front-loads the purpose, then lists content types, provides use case examples, and ends with an instruction to cite the URL. It is well-structured and each sentence adds value, though slightly lengthy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers key aspects: what it returns (articles with URLs), how to use (city slugs), and use context. It explicitly mentions citing the URL, implying the result includes URLs. Could be more explicit about return format, but sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions city slugs and optional category slugs, but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. The parameter descriptions in the schema are already clear (e.g., 'City slug — e.g. london, dubai, barcelona').

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to find authoritative editorial articles from Eventflare's expert advice library for planning corporate events in a specific city. It lists specific content types (venue selection guides, neighborhood comparisons, etc.) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_venue_details, which focus on specific venues rather than advice articles.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit example user queries and specifies when to use the tool (when a user asks 'how do I plan an event in {city}' or wants context beyond a venue listing). While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or name alternative tools, the context is clear and the guidance is actionable.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.